[SamAdams76]

If Riley is sure he won, he wouldn't object to a recount. After all, Bush went along with a recount and he STILL WON. I agree that Siegleman made a huge tactical error in declaring victory too soon and stating that Riley should do the right thing and not ask for a recount. That is why I have no sympathy for Siegleman's position. But a recount is the right thing to do when it is this close.

[PhiKapMom]

That's right -- let's have a recount and not follow Alabama law -- what is a little law standing in the way! (sarcasm)

Give me a break! About time someone stood up for the Rule of Law!

[CA Conservative]

If Riley is sure he won, he wouldn't object to a recount. After all, Bush went along with a recount and he STILL WON. I agree that Siegleman made a huge tactical error in declaring victory too soon and stating that Riley should do the right thing and not ask for a recount. That is why I have no sympathy for Siegleman's position. But a recount is the right thing to do when it is this close.

I would agree with you, if the law allowed for such a recount under these circumstances. If it doesn't, and Riley agreed to have one anyway, how is that any different that the Dems in FL or NJ or MN ignoring the laws of their states?

[commish]

Sam - I agree with your position in general. BUT, Alabama law does not allow for a statewide recount. Seigelman can ask for a recount COUNTY by COUNTY, but he has to pay for it - and his request must meet one of the three criteria that Riley's statement mentioned. A CLOSE ELECTION is not one of the reasons. If he can show just cause he can get his recounts COUNTY by COUNTY - but he can NEVER get a statewide recount.

[Dog Gone]

We stand for the law. You really need to rethink your position.

[SHKMAN1212]

"If Riley is sure he won, he wouldn't object to a recount. After all, Bush went along with a recount and he STILL WON. I agree that Siegleman made a huge tactical error in declaring victory too soon and stating that Riley should do the right thing and not ask for a recount. That is why I have no sympathy for Siegleman's position. But a recount is the right thing to do when it is this close."

I always thought following the law was the right thing to do...

[jwalsh07]

But a recount is the right thing to do when it is this close.

No Sam, the right thing to do is follow the law. If they don't like the law, they can change it at a later date but for now Siegelman loses, that's Alabama state law.

[mtnwmn]

A recount gives Siegelman free rein to steal the election. Riley and the Republicans would be fools to let him get hold of those ballots. Until you work the polls you cannot understand how easy it would be for an election to be stolen....a close election.

[Enterprise]

If the law was followed in prior elections, why should it be different now?

[piasa]

No, there is clearly some fishy business in preparation here as there is no excuse for counties to not be certified by now- no excuses whatsoever.

That some have not certified means that they have been told to stall- I've worked in heavily urbanized counting offices and in rural ones- ALL should be tallied and certified by sunrise after election day before the judges are even allowed to go home. There's only one reason to stall and avoid sealing those ballots and that is if someone wants to add more ballots and needs the time to pick out the names of voters who were registered but didn't show up to the polls, forge the sigs, and slip in the correct number of additional ballots.

In our case, back in Illinois, we were tallying ballots we knew had already been rigged. The classic sign of rigging back then was a late reporting precinct with pinholed ballots. But because the 'crime' had already taken place at the poll, there was nothing we could do until Illinois law was changed and pinholing was considered grounds for voiding a ballot. Up until then we were even REQUIRED to punch out pinholed chads, or select the chad nearest a poorly aimed pinhole, so the machine would accept them- otherwise the machine would reject those falsified votes. In effect, we were committing election fraud because the rats in power had written the law and had required us to count pinholed ballots (ballots stacked up and punched with a hatpin by some cheater). This is the same sort of criminal behavior allowed when a state permits pregnant chads and 3/4 chads to be tallied instead of sticking o a clear standard of a cleanly removed chad. It was frustrating for us because we knew what the rats were doing but had no power to stop it until the law was challenged and changed. Even now the law allows highly questionable ballots to be talied. If it didn't, Crook County might not be so crooked and secure a place for Rats.

Alabama has the sealed ballot system for a reason... so long as the boxes are delayed from being certified & sealed, they are vulnerable to fraud. They are not 'secure,' being wide open for any schmuck with a key to the closet to get in and rig if allowed the time to do it. That there are counties which still haven't certified indicates that someone is trying to give a tamperer some time for fraud.

I wonder if those counties happen to be ones with urbanized 'rat precincts.

[aruanan]

But a recount is the right thing to do when it is this close.

And so, you, with the screen name SamAdams76, propose to do the liberal thing and let your feelings of what is right trump the law, which defines what is right. Tsk tsk. May Sam Adams visit you in your sleep and scare the crap out of you.

[Choozer]

The right thing to do is subjective. That's we have laws. (Both God's moral law as well as those laws instituted by sovereign governments, which He commanded us to obey.)

[InterceptPoint]

But a recount is the right thing to do when it is this close

Sorry but it is only the right thing to do if our side lost. We won and we should't give them an inch. If things were reversed the Dems wouldn't even consider what is the "right thing to do". This is politics. Winning is what counts and we are winning.

[zook]

But a recount is the right thing to do when it is this close.

Or, they could follow the law.

[lstanle]

"But a recount is the right thing to do when it is this close."

It would seem that if the state of Alabama wanted to have a recount when an election is this close that their election laws would reflect that desire.. The right thing to do is obey the law. IMO

[vaudine]

Do you understand "rule of law"? It is against Alabama law to have a statewide recount because the threshold set forth has not been met. I live in AL and I do not want another Florida, NJ, or MN (where the court changed the absentee ballot law). Just because one candidate whines is no reason to open the door for limitless voter fraud.
I for one am sick, sick, sick of the whining and conniving of Dems. The legislature wrote the election laws as is their mission. The court cannot set these laws aside unless they can be declared unconstitional. A lot of people do not seem to understand that the FL SC overstepped itself in overriding the election laws of FL. The only reason the US SC stepped in was that it was a federal/presidential election and the selected recount disenfranchised MORE voters than the Dems claimed NOT recounting would do.

Long live the rule of law, and hello Governor Riley!

Vaudine

[nicmarlo]

If Riley is sure he won, he wouldn't object to a recount.

Feelings of doubt or certainty are irrelevant. One doesn't have to "prove" they're right to assuage another's feelings. (Christ said let your "yes" be "yes" and your "no" be "no.")

But a recount is the right thing to do when it is this close.

The right thing to do: follow the election laws in place as of the day of the election. We have gone down this road before. SCOTUS slapped the Floriduh Supremes for changing election laws in the middle of the election process. The Floriduh Supremes' "feelings" about the law were irrelevant. They cannot make new law, nor can we. It is for the Legislative Branch of government to make "arbitrary" decision "legal" decisions.

We cannot continue to make a mockery of every election and the Rule of Law.

[RobbyS]

Noy if the recount is contrary to law. If the law already stipulates conditions, it is ipso facto reasonable. Don't like the outcome? Then change it legislatively. Don't resort to star chamber reasoning whereby some "sovereign good"as determined by the lord chancellor overrides it.

[Illbay]

If Riley is sure he won, he wouldn't object to a recount.

Wrong. In the first place, there is no reason for a recount, and there's no reason for the state of Alabama to have to pony up the bucks for the recount.

Second, Democrats don't see a recount as a chance to be sure of the results of an election. They see it as a chance to STEAL the election. Gov.-elect Riley's invocation of the memory of Florida is very appropriate.

Finally, Siegelman's own words, when he thought he'd won, betray him.

'Rats need to be taught a lesson, that the elective process is not there for them to exploit. They have brought shame and ridicule on themselves and on the USA far too often.

Time for Siegelman to take his own advice, and stop these silly shenanigans RIGHT NOW.